Angband 4.2.4

[Djabanete]

Originally Posted by fph

The recent versions removed most non-Tolkien monsters, giving Angband a more consistent setting

I see --- I haven't played Angband in quite a while, alas!

I remember it as being very much Tolkien mashed up with the D&D Monstrous Manual and other Moria-descended things (Q's, i's, y's, w's). D&D is based on Vance's stories among other pulp fantasy, and the Erymanthian Boar seems no more out of place than Medusa the Gorgon and the various hydras (which are/were in V).

It also sounds like there's some major new content that's not Tolkienish (Blackguard?).

My suggestions were based on the idea that, in V, the Tolkien atmosphere has in the past been a framework around which a great many other materials are added. Also, a lot of the monsters that "feel right" have nostalgia on their side, but no Tolkien lineage (Kavlax, Boldor, Qlzqqlzuup, etc. etc.).

Sorry for going so far into the weeds over a very minor subtopic

[Selkie]

Don't apologise. Going into the weeds over minor sub topics is half of what this forum is all about

[Ingwe Ingweron]

All this assumes that @ is "good". I don't necessarily subscribe to that philosophy. @ slaughters townies and dungeon dwellers alike, both good and bad. Anyone or anything standing between @ and the Big Bosses is ripe for murder. In the end, I think @ just wants to become the newest, biggest, and baddest Dark Lord!

[Ingwe Ingweron]

Nick, has something changed about lore.txt? Copying monster.txt and renaming no longer gives @ monster knowledge.

[Djabanete]

Originally Posted by Ingwe Ingweron

All this assumes that @ is "good".

Not really. It's fine if you want to be an evil warrior who wants to be the next Dark Lord. What's inconsistent is that Beorn would be hanging out with a bunch of Orcs and Ringwraiths and that, while he's there, his highest priority is slaying @.

You could add Faramir and Galadriel as monsters, and even if you justified it by saying "@ is allowed to be evil," that dungeon still wouldn't make any sense. Beorn is a more minor character and has a more reclusive lifestyle, but lore-wise he's squarely in the "good guy fights evil" category.

Obviously not all monsters make the same amount of sense, some are from other legendariums, some are goofy, and some are Middle-Earth monsters that weren't around when Angband was around. "Realism" isn't the only concern, but I think most of us would agree Faramir and Galadriel shouldn't be added as monsters, so I'm not sure why Beorn should get a pass, now that we're talking about him.

[Nick]

Originally Posted by Ingwe Ingweron

Nick, has something changed about lore.txt? Copying monster.txt and renaming no longer gives @ monster knowledge.

Not intentionally - I'll test.

[Nick]

Originally Posted by Ingwe Ingweron

Nick, has something changed about lore.txt? Copying monster.txt and renaming no longer gives @ monster knowledge.

Confirmed, it's broken. I think I know what's wrong, there will be a fix in due course. Also 4.2.5 confirmed

[bron]

I note that when I throw ('v') an iron shot, the damage is doubled. Feature or bug?

[Nick]

Originally Posted by bron

I note that when I throw ('v') an iron shot, the damage is doubled. Feature or bug?

Feature, I think (as in it's deliberate but I'm not sure if it's a good idea).

[ewert]

Originally Posted by Nick

Feature, I think (as in it's deliberate but I'm not sure if it's a good idea).

It makes the start of game quite trivial, especially if you find +x shots in weapon shop, based on my recent rogue games. I think I have had 15dmg/rnd if thrown from the get go ... I'd say revert that. Slings are there for a purpose.